As I have noted in my previous reply there are VARIOUS bugreports dealing with different aspects of this, so rehashing it all lumped together on d-d@ is not very productive and I would like to advice anyone seriously interested in this to contribute to the relevant one instead. And the rest can be happy as they were asking for "testing" and they got to test something and the gathered test results are now being worked on… On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:47:28PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > For myself, no, a shorter/simplified version of the release notes > probably wouldn't have made me more likely to read them. Clients producing these errors can optionally also print a pointer to the release notes btw, just in case that would nudge anyone to give them a read, it was just not used for now for buster. N: More information about this can be found online in the Release notes at: https://example.org/future > it using apt-get - since that's my preferred client, and the idea of > switching clients just for a single task like this strikes me as > intuitively wrong somehow. In fact, it's possible that I *did* do that; JFTR: apt and apt-get use the very same code for "update" via libapt. In fact all package managers in Debian do, be it aptitude, synaptics or your preferred software center [okay, there are exceptions, but if you happen to use one you will know that]. As such you can mix and match apt clients as much as you like. The difference is in the presentation: "apt" tries to be a little friendlier in interactive usage while "apt-get" sticks to 'what it always did' as much as it can without negative effects [= big bugs and security tend to be the only reason for it changing drastically]. As it is usual for apt clients there is an option for basically everything though. Setting the options listed by the following command for apt-get as well will make it behave as if it were apt: apt-config dump --no-empty Binary::apt Binary::apt::APT::Get::Update::InteractiveReleaseInfoChanges "1"; being responsible for the interactive question in update btw. APT is really not as much magic as people believe… (but I might be biased 😉) > different clients, earlier in this thread. IMO, if the release notes > need to document any of them, they should document all - or, if it's As an example, the current plan is to make the switch over for Suite changes automatic – if some preconditions are satisfied. The discussion about that isn't hard to find, but here you go: #931566. You are welcome to add any good ideas not already present (that hopefully shows also that this is a tiny bit more complex than it looks at first). Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature